Why use silver based BW if you scan?

Count me among the people really enjoy the economy and pride of processing your own negs at home. I'm still struggling to come to grips with scanning my silver negs. My Nikon LS-30 sometimes has trouble pulling details out of the denser areas of the negative, although viewscan plus multiple pass scans improve the situation considerably. Some people try and process thinner negs to make scanning simpler but I still want the option to hand print my work.

 

Printing the digital B&W is also an issue I've identified. I can't yet justify a second printer with piezo inks.

I find silver films scans as well as C-41, _IF_ you keep your density range within what your scanner and software can handle. Scanners with collimated light sources, notably LED-based Nikons, have trouble with even slightly thick silver negs, but that's a failing of Nikon's, not of silver film.

 

My Polaroid Sprintscan 120 + Vuescsan does a pretty decent job on even abusively thick B&W negs (TMY @ 6400) (even better if I scan as color neg and use the exposure differences between channels to gain even more density range), but, ironically, it's the Polaroid's mediocre color performance (and a move to more 4x5) that's pushing me towards buying an older drum scanner.

 

And, while one can make a (fairly weak) case for using chromogenics to replace TMY, they'll never be remotely close to Tech Pan, or even Pan F.

The scratches on film from the commerical lab!

Dear Tim,

 

Nine tenths of the people who use non-chromogenic films can't produce negatives as good as the corner drugstore can with XP2. But they kid themselves they can. They like being able to fool around with irrelevant and toxic developers: it allows them to pretend they know what they are doing. Most don't.

 

Maybe I exaggerate: maybe it's no more than half that would do better with XP2. But I do know that I've seen superb prints made with XP2 -- as good as the best made with conventional film (XP2 is silver based too, of course).

 

I use mostly conventional films, principally out of habit (and I like some of the effects). My wife uses XP2 for preference and she's a better photographer than I.

 

Mind you, we both prefer real (halide) prints but XP2 wins for scans for exactly the reasons you give.

 

Cheers,

 

Roger

I'm currently experimenting to find a B&W film to use with my new cameras. I find it easy to scan HP5+, TMY, and Tri-X, all processed at a good B&W Lab in LA. I just shot two rolls of XP2, and was dismayed by the rendition of the shadows: full of noise / grain. It seemed to me that I would have to rate it at 200 to fix this, or overprint so that these noisy shadows are lost. I find it much easier to scan Tri-X and TMY than XP2. Maybe it's my scanner, an Epson 2450, but it seems OK on other types of film.

 

My next experiment will be this weekend with T400CN, which many folks seem to like. I suspect I'll end up choosing a silver emulsion, though.

 

Neil

Tim, its just not true. C-41 process film do give easy scanning, but with a very little experimentation it is possible to find great silver based film and developer combinations that give similar results. I use a high end scanner (Minolta Multi Pro)that will bring the best and worst out of films with its high dpi. For instance, I never have nice scannable negs if I use Rodinal with Tri-X. But dev Tri-X in DD-X and it is just like a chromogenic film for tone, grain and sharpness. Better in fact. APX 100 on the other hand gives wonderful negs to scan when developed in Rodinal. You simply have to look at the benefits of using a terrific range of silver based emulsions on the market, choose one, and find a developer that suites you the film and your scanner.

Didn't Kodak change the base on the new b%w films(tri-x) to make scanning much easier? I think I read that somewhere. Also I heard that new new base(plastic?) has better archival properties.

Maybe it's off topic, but development in staining developer does not reduce density range, even for VC paper. To prove it, develop a test roll in a standard developer like D-76, Rodinal, XTOL, and make prints on VC paper. Now bleach the film in sepia bleach and redevelop in a staining developer like PMK or Pyrocat-HD. Print the same neggatives again without changing enlarging filtration. Tell me the contrast is not higher than before.

 

I scan many silver negatives, stained or unstained, with very good results, as long as the density is not too high. I do it especially when there are pinholes or scratches that need retouching. It is much easier to do digitally. Pigmented inks in some ink jet printers give prints that can stay in direct sunlight for long periods without fading or changing color.